If you think that America is going to rejuvenate itself by allowing the oil companies to evade taxes; to aggravate America's energy dependency, balance of payments, defence spending and national security problems; and to destroy the planet while doing it, then sure, go right ahead, vote for Mr. Toothpaste commercial, and elect Republicans to Congress.

And if you do, you'd better encourage your kids to study Chinese, Hindi, and German so they can understand the instructions of their future employers.

America squandered over $ 2T on two wars that would not have occurred but for America's involvment in the oil producing countries in the arabian gulf.

Oil companies do pay tax, but not anything like their fair share, and what they pay does not even begin to cover the extent to which oil companies are subsidized through the defence budget, through insurance, through health care, and through the transport subsidies of the highway system.

You'll also notice that countries where the oil lobby has not been successful at blocking environmental protection also tend be be richer on a per capita basis, have higher levels of education, and have better life expectancy. All of those outcomes represent the perverse effect that the oil industry has had, and continues to have, on America.

You'll also notice that countries where the oil lobby has not been successful at blocking environmental protection also tend be be richer on a per capita basis

Wait, what!? We're richer than Europe, if that's who you're referring to. When it comes to a list of countries that a richer than the United States on a per capita basis, you're down to a handful of financial havens and, wait for it, oil states. Dubai didn't get its wealth from people not burning gas.

You've gone off the deep end politically with the rest of them, WW. You honestly think it would've been different with an equally liberal blue-state white Democrat in office? Blue-collar white men have been voting Republican since Reagan. Dole won them in a landslide. Clinton would've lost in 96 had Colin Powell run.

Those who argue that Obama's race was the deciding factor in his 2008 victory are massively, grossly wrong.

The Democrats could have nominated an illegal, atheist gay immigrant named Sanchez Muhammad Abayomi Chong and still would have won. Obama's critics have a case of mass amnesia when it comes to GWB's immense unpopularity back then; people blaming him for the Great Recession (perhaps unfairly so) didn't help either, and he still remains the most widely hated ex-president of all time. McCain was a sitting duck regardless of who he faced off against just because he was a Republican, and he dug his own grave when he picked Sarah Palin the ignoramus as his VP.

But this all misses the point anyways; why are you even arguing the electability of a president based on his race? Assume that Obama indeed benefited from his skin colour. So what now, it's payback time? That's not a way to elect the world's most powerful man, is it?

Furthermore, attributing Obama's victory in 2008 to his skin colour demonstrates gross blindness to GWB's utter ineptitude at his post, and his party's utter f**k-up of the country. Maybe, just maybe, American democracy worked to select the better qualified candidate?

Harvard political science guy recently estimated the racial animus effect gave McCain a 5-6% lead, the equivalent of a home-state advantage nationwide, in the national popular vote. He estimated the positive uplift from race, particularly from African Americans, at 1% or less.

Reading the paper, I am still confused how any methodology could possibly distinguish between an effect of people voting pro-Obama for racial reasons, and against Obama for racial reasons. The arguments in the paper don't hold water with me. For example, he dismisses the idea of white voters voting in favor of Obama for racial reasons using precisely the survey data that he discards in the racial animus case for showing no anti-Obama effect. Is it really so obvious, as he claims, that voters would not be willing to admit that they voted for Obama because he was black, and all things being equal, they'd like to vote for the first black President?

I'm afraid that too much of this is simply going in with an assumption that voting for President Obama was the obvious thing to do. Finding bias in the Other but not in oneself. I don't see how you can distinguish the two sources of bias.

The whole point of the paper is that social pressures cause survey results to show a pro-Obama bias that does not show in revealed preferences of voting. The survey data doesn't apply precisely because it cannot measure hidden preferences.

His efforts were to measure this effect, not the opposite (revealed preference FOR Obama, rather than AGAINST) as you seem to believe. From the paper summary (emphasis mine):

"I argue that any votes Obama gained due to his race in the general election were not nearly enough to outweigh the cost of racial animus, meaning race was a large net negative for Obama. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest Obama gained at most only about one percentage point of the popular vote from increased African-American support. The effect was limited by African-Americans constituting less than 13 percent of the population and overwhelmingly supporting every Democratic candidate. Evidence from other research, as well as some new analysis in this paper, suggest that few white voters swung in Obama’s favor in the general election due to his race."

I am confused by your comment. Did you read the paper, or only the summary? The author spends time discussing both interpretations. Any voting pattern can be equally explained, at least prima facie, by either a pro-Obama bias or an anti-Obama bias. Thus the author, while spending more time attempting to confirm that votes against Obama in certain regions were due to racial animus, also spent time attempting to claim that votes for Obama could not be, e.g., out of a charitable desire to, all things being equal, favor the potential first black President. From page 21:

"A variety of evidence suggest that few white voters swung, in the general election, for Obama due to his race. Only one percent of whites said that race made them much more likely to support Obama (Fretland, 2008). In exit polls, 3.4 percent of whites did report both voting for Obama and that race was an important factor in their decision... Although social scientists strongly suspect that individuals may underreport racial animus, there is little reason to suspect underreporting of pro-black sentiment."

The author gave at most an honorable mention to "attempting to claim that votes for Obama could not be, e.g., out of a charitable desire to, all things being equal, favor the potential first black President." It's explicitly stated that this is treated in other research, and that he is merely repeating the conclusions of others. Your criticism of taking the research of others as an essentially unproven assumption is valid, but it remains true that that portion of the argument is not drawn from this paper's empirical work. In particular, the methodology used (google searches) has no good proxy for positive racial bias or racial tolerance like the word "n****r" used as a proxy for racial intolerance.

"Maybe, just maybe, American democracy worked to select the better qualified candidate?"

That may be true if applied to Hillary Clinton who won the most important and biggest states and won the popular vote in the primaries. Obama was pushed to the finish line by superdelegates.

McCain (because of or in despite of Palin) was leading (by few margins) in the polls. Was the Finance chaos that finally tilted the needle in Obama's favor. Ironically, it wasnt because he proposed anything to deal with the chaos, but because (in difference to McCain who rushed to DC), Obama kept it "cool".

So even to that point, even with the malaise of BDS (bush derange synd) Obama wasnt exactly "a favorite", but the most plausible alternative. In other words, Democrats could have nominated their own Donkey mascote and still win - so this was the ONLY one in a lifetime, all stars aligned they had to nominate (and win) with someone like Obama.

Anybody who denies that his race was a big factor is fooling thyself. While is true that a solid AfAm vote goes to the democrats (in 2004 they went 96% for Kerry), it is also true that blacks adored the Clintons (BC was called the 1st black potus). Has obama been white, he wouldve NEVER won against Clinton.

I am sure he is correct, but only because Blacks are a smaller percentage of the population than Whites. Clinton got 84% of the Black vote in 1996, Gore got 90% in 2000, and Kerry got 88% in 2004, Obama got 95% in 2008. So I'll take the effect of Obama Blackness among Blacks as giving Obama an extra, say, 5%-6% of the Black vote. WOW, THAT IS THE SAME PERCENTAGE THAT MCCAIN GOT FROM WHITES FOR BEING WHITE! Preternatural. However, since Blacks are about 13% of the population, the 5% to 6% edge among blacks only gave Obama a bit less than a 1% (.13 x .06).

So I agree with the Harvard Poli Sci guy, though I hope he is not too proud of his analytical skills.

"Mr Obama's skin color has always worked to his disadvantage." - I rather disagree with that statement, especially the "always" part. One can easily conjecture that he received some advantage from it with the affirmative action programs in place. We do not know, given his secrecy as to his transcripts. I will not go further here, but if desired, one could write a long tome on the pros and cons of his skin color in his advancement.

Obama during the last election received enormous adulation and support from white Americans as a kind of unconscious gesture that whites in America could show they they are not really racist by supporting a dark skinned candidate. The worst was the media which abandoned all pretense off objectivity to worship Obama. White Americans have instilled such a complex about race in their conscious that they often adore non threatening black people.

When the economy is doing well people are pretty decent and mostly leave everyone else alone. But, when things go down the crapper, everybody gets just a little bit worse. In good times, people worry about what they can do themselves to provide the things the want.

It's harder to do that when the economy tanks. In bad times, they start looking over at the Joneses with that hungry expression and start wondering if there might not be some way that they could just take the things they want from somebody else. This is a convenient thing for unethical politicians who have figured out they can redistribute all those things you want (but inconveniently aren't yours) to you. It's about fairness you see. I wonder if there's any politician, looking for a way to get reelected right now, who might perchance come to mind here.

By the way WW, could you please provide me with a guide of conservative things I am allowed say that are not somehow motivated by my deep-seated racism and birtherism. Every time!

"By the way WW, could you please provide me with a guide of conservative things I am allowed say that are not somehow motivated by my deep-seated racism and birtherism. Every time!" Pretty much anything. Man up.

Obama inherited a bad hand, that he has played poorly. Especially inn the race relations arena.
His biggest problems aren't the big things: it's the small things that he has allowed to get under the skin of the white middle class voters. And the perception he has allowed to take hold among people who were suspicious to start with. His Philadelphia speech, his rush to judgment in the Gates case and even his comments in the mess of the Zimmerman case have left a lot of whites concluding that Obama isn't a US President who happens to be black, but rather a Black who happens to be president. That he isn't a President for all America but only a president for those he cares for.
"Reward your friends and punish your enemies," he openly stated in 2010.
Well, the white folks getting punished by the economy see no reason to consider him *their* friend. Blacks in the same condition (and worse) might mutter to themselves but they won't speak up as they are never going to vote republican anyway (as Warren Beatty's BULWORTH openly proclaimed) and neither will the mexicans as long as he holds out the carrot of amnesty, "someday".
Absent visible criticism from the minorities, the whites will reasonably (though incorrectly) conclude they are doing better than before and happy with the current situation, hence their solid support for Obama. The logical result is thus to transfer their suspicions and dislike for the Presiddent to his most visible supporters, compounding the strife the "Friedman effect" is already fostering.
In other words, things are only *starting* to get bad in the social arena.
Personally I expect Obama to, as they say in sports: "Win ugly".
His rock solid union and minority support and the scorched earth campaign will deliver unto him a victory but it will be a hollow victory without any credible mandate for anything meaningful. His victory will have no coat-tails and foster even deeper partisanship.
Given the electoral map, it is actually quite possible to win an election without the majority of middle class american whites but it is unlikely anybody can actually *govern* without their votes.
The challenge for the next four years for the rest of the country will be to try to survive four years in the poisoned environment left behind by the Obama scorched earth campaign.

W.W.: "We all know that incumbents don't often survive poor economic conditions, and that Mr Obama, who inherited a financial crisis and a deep recession, was dealt a crap hand."

Yes but Mr. Obama owes his election in 2008, in no small part, to the very financial crisis and recession which now weigh him down. Sen. McCain likely feels that he was dealt a crap hand the last time 'round.

Mr. Obama did much to raise voters expectations that he would fix the economy. Four years on, he hasn't fulfilled those expectations. I'm sure he assumed that the economy would turn on its own and, as in the past, a sharp recession would be followed by a strong recovery and that he would be hailed as genius/hero. It hasn't worked out that way.

Unmet expectations on the economy is a far better explanation for the President's current political predicament than W.W.'s theories of middle- and lower-class whites' latent racial animus.

No, they're not. The tea party has largely advanced the same policies that "W" embraced and yet they have the upper hand. Romney argued against bailing out Detroit and now claims to be it's author. The current set of Republicans offer nothing "W" didn't do but working class non-university educated whites prefer them. It's not their ideas that are so appealing.

Whenever the left needs a convenient excuse for why people do not like Obama, they love to pull out the race card and play it for all its worth. I guess they are so enamored of Obama that they cannot understand how anyone would actually criticize him.

Then again, some of us on the right have looked at, you know, the data. Race gave Obama a marginal plus among blacks (who anyway vote Democratic, so it's hard to see much net benefit). Bad did much worse than a generic Democrat among poor whites, especially in the deep South. Of course, that's not racism...yeah, and I've got this bridge that I am practically giving away it's such a good deal.

Certainly some people hate Obama for his policies, just as others hated Bush for his. And others hated both simply as group solidarity -- they always hate elected officials from the other party. But the geographical distribution, breadth, and fervor of the haters makes it extremely hard to see race as a non-issue.

I've got lots of beefs with Obama's policies, and more with his implementations. Not to mention his priorities. But there is a difference between not liking those, and the kind of hatred we keep seeing.

You forget the depth of animosity libs held for George W. Bush. He was routinely called an idiot, a criminal and worse in the popular press and mercilessly lampooned. By contrast, most Americans, including a significant share of Republicans, still hold a favorable view of Mr. Obama and the comics and commentariat go relatively easy on him.

There were some liberals who held the kind of animosity against Bush that you note. But the animosity was grounded, in general, in his policies and actions. (Accusations that he was stupid were, in general, a result of their low opinion rather than a cause. In short, it was an insult growing out of their animosty, rather than an accusation.) Note that I am not saying anything about the merits of the policies that they objected to.

In contrast, conservative animosity against Obama starts, in my observation, elsewhere. His policies are opposed, frequently, not because of the policy but because they are his. Indeed, in some cases, they were strongly supported until Obama came out in support. Again, I am not judging the merits of those policies.

As you say, Obama gets a somewhat easier ride from comics. The commentariat, on the other hand, rips him at least as hard as they ripped Bush. (At least in the publications that I read.) Which commenters rip him is different, of course, and what kinds of things they rip him for. But the net doesn't seem that different.

> But the animosity was grounded, in general, in his policies and actions.

Disagree. Some hated GW because of his patrician heritage and derided him for being born with a silver spoon in his mouth, others because he was a Texas cowboy with a folksy twang in his voice, others because he was a certifiable idiot who likely had only been admitted to ivy league schools because he was legacy, still others because he had a business background and (to them) reeked of the corporate world. There were as many reasons to hate Bush as their were haters, and much of the animosity was personal in nature - striking right at the core of his identity (his intellect, his personality, his culture, his parentage).

>His policies are opposed, frequently, not because of the policy but because they are his. Indeed, in some cases, they were strongly supported until Obama came out in support.

For example?

> As you say, Obama gets a somewhat easier ride from comics.<

Much, much easier. There have been tallies of how frequently the president is the target of late-night comics quips that show he's getting off lightly compared to his predecessors. Heck, Letterman is fawning in praise of the president.

> The commentariat, on the other hand, rips him at least as hard as they ripped Bush.

We're starting to see more criticism of him now because his signature achievement is in jeopardy, his reelection prospects are dimming, and there have a series of unforced errors in recent weeks. But for most of his tenure, and certainly during the 2008 campaign he was a press darling. And even today he treated with kid gloves.

There were indeed people who opposed, or even hated, Bush for all of the reasons you mention. (And, just for the record, anybody who can get thru Harvard's MBA probram is not an idiot; especially so if he is more inclined to party than to study.) But the number was tiny (albeit quite vocal) compared to the numbers who were down on Obama.

In addition to the ObamaCare (nee RomenyCare) example that Joe cites above, Obama regularly gets trashed for TARP -- which was a Bush policy, passed into law and signed by Bush. Regardless of its merits, there is no way in which Obama is to blame for its existance.

Obama may have gotten an easy ride from the press during the 2008 election. But if memory serves, Bush got a similarly easy ride in 2000. The main difference in ocverage of the two campaigns (again, as I remmeber it) was that in 2000 the Democratic VP didn't get talked about the way that Palin (deservedly) did in 2008.

The difference is implementation at the STATE level verses FEDERAL level.

What Obama and most mainstream politicians, in Washington, represent is the time tested Federalist verses States Rights folks. Nearly all of Obama's policies move to strengthen Federal rights at the expense of States rights. As he continues to push his agenda, more and more control is transferred to the Federal Government. Personally, I view this as contrary to the US Constitution.

States' vs Federalism was a primary driver for the Civil War. Yes, slavery was an ancillary NOT primary cause. And as the saying goes, those who don't understand history tend to repeat it.

First, while there are some similarities the president's health bill was substantively different in many ways that the president's supporters elide.

Secondly the vast majority of Republicans and/or Tea Party independents never formed an opinion on the Heritage and Dole bills and to the extent any did they likely only preferred it to the Clinton bill and they actively repudiate Romney's bill. Romney's bill was crafted for one of the most liberal states in the union. Massachusetts is not America.

Perhaps its comforting to think that the president's critics are all racist hypocrits but I assure you there is principled opposition to the bill.

You may be right about conservatives opposing Obama's policies merely because they are his while liberals did not do the same for Bush. But there are several examples that point in the opposite direction. Let me name a few -

1. Obama's aggressive foreign policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan - I'm not arguing the merits of this policy but liberals are mostly silent on this. They were incredibly virulent when Bush did the same in Afghanistan but say nothing about Obama's equally hawkish foreign policy.

2. Obama's bungling of the BP oil spill - Bush was criticized terribly for Katrina but Obama seems to have got a complete pass on similar incompetence. Not a peep from the liberal environmentalists. I'm personally amazed how that incident isn't even mentioned anymore as an example of this administration's incompetence.

3. Obama's raising bushels of money from bankers and rich donors - liberals scream until they are hoarse about the pernicious effect of big money in elections. But they have no problem when their man goes about raising money through $32K per plate dinners.

4. Obama's free pass for industry cronies like GE - for all the ranting about evil corporations, liberals don't utter a sound about Obama's favorite behemoths not paying a dime in taxes!

5. Obama's violation of citizen civil rights by ordering the deaths of such without a fair trial - the deadly strike on the American guy in Yemen. I think it was the right decision to make but do we honestly believe liberals would have given Bush a free pass for a similar incident?

I've given you several significant examples here of Obama's policies and practices - foreign and domestic, civil and criminal - for which liberals would have not spared Bush. Replace that word Bush with Obama and they seem completely fine with it.

Both parties accept (if unenthusiastically) actions from a President of their own party that they would have objected to (or did) in a President of the other. Inconsistent (or hypocritical, if you will), but certainly traditional. You could even say that being in office forced them to be more realistic . . . at least in some instances.

But that is a bit different from objecting to a policy which you had previously advocated, just because a President of the other party has embraced it. It is as if Democrats had trashed Bush for adding MediCare Part D -- not for failing to fund it, just for the mere idea of increasing benefits. Or, to go back a bit further, if Republicans had denounced Clinton's welfare reforms simply because he was a Democrat. No matter that it was a big step in the direction of what they had been demanding be done about welfare.

It's not a matter of compromising principles in support of one's own. It's refusing to take Yes for an answer from one of the other guys.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment. I think we agree on your last point. What I was trying to demonstrate however was that these issues are not as black and white as your previous comment seemed to imply.

You are correct in pointing out that evidently the most egregious example of hypocrisy is Romney and Heritage supporting the individual mandate and now opposing it under Obama. But there are two very important points here. Firstly, Romney and Heritage do not remotely represent the whole conservative base. More importantly, there is a major difference between states passing a given law (where citizens can vote with their feet) versus the federal government doing the same (where citizens have no choice except leaving the country).

It is also worth mentioning that under Bush, a significant part of the party base was against his runaway spending. He was decried by a major chunk Republican voters as not being a real traditional "small government" conservative at all and that he had completely abandoned the principles of the party.

This is not to say by any means that conservatives would've opposed a Republican president the way they do Obama (or vice versa). Perhaps the most important reason for voters from both parties behaving in such a seemingly hypocritical manner is the correct recognition by them that if they weakened their own house and the opposing party came to power, the same policies that offend them would be much worse.

The Ryan Republican Suicide Budget is all the Democrats need, and all they needed to do much better in 2010, if they'd bothered. Just explain it clearly, over and again. The Tea Party revelers did not come out to cut taxes on the rich, or to cut programs that benefit nice middle-class White people like themselves and their loved ones. They were angry about bailing out the banks, worried about threats to their employee-provided health insurance, and resentful of the imaginary vast proportion of the Federal budget going to people darker than they are, both foreign and domestic. Certainly, a fair number were unhappy with a Black man in the White House.

Isn't it obvious? Point out that a guy with a quarter of a billion dollars who pays 15% income tax wants to lower taxes on the rich, and pay for it by gutting your Medicare and Social Security. No need to scorch any earth; just the facts. Make every Republican explain why that's a good idea. To paraphrase Harry Truman, no need to give 'em hell. Just tell the truth, and they'll think it's hell.

"African-Americans have been brainwashed into not being open minded, not even considering a conservative point of view. I have received some of that same vitriol simply because I am running for the Republican nomination as a conservative. So it's just brainwashing and people not being open minded, pure and simple."

So, thanks for showing me the budget of those dastardly republicans...

Apparently they intend to cut the marginal rate of my taxes. And it looks like they want to do something about making sure this country I happen to quite like doesn't go bankrupt. And it appears that they have decided that my money, that I made, and belongs to me, should stop being wasted by this government I don't like so much.

If they were actually talking about doing something to keep our country from going bankrupt, you'd have a point. But so far I see cuts to revenue, combined with carefully and utterly unspecific cuts in "programs" (except explicitly NOT Social Security, Medicare, or defense) -- while anyone who actually looked at the numbers would see that this is a perscription for more debt, not less.

If they had a plan where the numbers actually worked, I'd definitely be interested. But what I see is a choice between "tax and spend" and "borrow and spend". However much I'd like lower taxes, I just can't believe anybody who advocates not bringing in money for what they want to spend.

You say they aren't going to cut so you're against 'em. Bamps says they are so he's against 'em. Whether they're gutting social security or they're lying about cutting spending, I don't think it's fair how the republicans get blamed for doing both at the same time.

One of you must be wrong and should vote republican. I think you two should work out who that's going to be together.

Actually, I said that they aren't going to cut and aren't going to raise taxes to pay for it. Whether they cut, or raise taxes, or some combination (my personal preference) -- any of the above might get my vote. So if they cut some, bambps can vote against them; and if they cut some and cut taxes to the point that the deficit keeps growing, I can vote against them. No conflict between us.

A lot of Blacks are evangelicals and social conservatives, but all those decades of pandering to Southern bigots has made them quite reasonably wary of the GOP. The same is true of Hispanics; plenty of social conservatives, but too many White Republicans go for people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I'm sure you remember what happened when Rove and GW Bush tried to make their party see the demographic wall ahead of them.

We got fooled by supply-side tax cuts, without any specified budget cuts, because the voodoo priests promised that the cuts would pay for themselves. Instead, we dug a debt pit for ourselves with nothing to show for it but much richer very rich people. I'm embarrassed to admit I bought that nonsense at first, but I'm not going to be suckered again. First, to get it out of the way, taxes have stayed far too low on the highest incomes even though it was clear long ago that supply-side is hooey. But most important of all, we have to get medical expenses under control, and that requires that we engage like responsible adults with a whole lot of difficult ethical questions. That hard political work has to come first. Then we allocate the pain accordingly.

Because of the Democracy in America blog, I now understand Team Obama's "scorched earth" strategy; however, if I were the online editor (whose initials are R.M.), I would delete the last paragraph and replace with:

I badly wish I could honestly say that this won't be the decisive "framed choice", but I can't. I fear we've lost more than GDP since 2008. The "Hope and Change" promised in 2008 by Team Obama never materialized. And, Team Obama failed to turn their crap hand into a "winning" strategy for 2012.

"I doubt it's just that white voters, with our without college degrees, feel things are getting worse economically. Mr Obama's skin color has always worked to his disadvantage."

So things are getting worse economically, but it's all the fault of Obama's skin color that people are going to vote against him? Nothing about considering him to be responsible for the economy's dismal performance? (I know, he inherited a mess. He should have done something with it, instead of just claiming "it's Bush's fault". After four years, that excuse won't fly any longer.)

And if you're going to complain that it's actually unfair to judge the president by the economy, because he has less control than he is given credit for, you're right. But it was also unfair when that handed victory to Clinton over Bush Sr.

Well, you have Perot to blame for that also, methinks. At that point, the US had racked up well over $1T in debt, and 19% thought government should pay that down. Likewise, a fair contingent of GOP voters were upset that George HW Bush raised taxes, and didn't show up at all on election day. Regardless, I agree that it wasn't necessarily fair for Bush Sr. to be denied a second term.

Incumbents are always penalised for a weak economy. My conjecture is that Mr Friedman's argument implies that the cultural retrenchment of recessions may impose an *extra* penalty on ethnic minority incumbents, and that this extra penalty may well lose Obama re-election. If Obama loses by just a hair, I think it will be plausible to see his race as a decisive factor in the outcome. In the event he loses big, the economy will have done him in; racism will have merely run up the score. I'm not making a partisan argument. I just think this is the way it is. Nothing about the argument suggests Romney isn't a strong candidate worthy of support on the merits. This wouldn't be such a big problem for Obama if he weren't.

Personally, I prefer to think that we're close to Martin Luther King's dream: That Obama is being judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content (and results) of his policies. But then, I'm a college graduate...

Considering that I intend to vote for republicans in the election, I was wondering why you think the bad economy has caused me to hate Obama because of the color of his skin and not Mitt Romney because of the church he belongs to. Being neither black nor a Mormon, I should be paralyzed twixt equally powerful emotions of fear and resentment, should I not?

But since you read (and comment) here, you can be presumed to be more likely than the average voter to be making you decisions on issues, not on race or theology.

The fact that lots of other people are likewise making their decisions on what they see as the merits does not change the fact that racism, or sectarianism, may play a significant role in determining the votes of a lot of others.

Talking to people around where I live, I've heard variations on the theme of "I'm not racist, I like/get along with black people fine, it's niggers I don't like." Given that people have mentioned this casually to me, assuming I may share, or at least not mind their opinion (it's been remarked that I look very, very conservative in person, people can't guess my political views based on how I behave or look in a business environment, they tend to think I'm another good ol boy, as I've heard it put), I have to include the sentiment is not uncommon at all where I live (I'm certain they wouldn't confide this in me if they knew that my girlfriend was black and that I spent a lot of time in black neighborhoods). Given that the skinheads and neo-Nazis I've known have expressed the exact same sentiment, often in the same words (lacking the I'm not racist bit as a qualifier), and fully admitted they're racist, leads me to worry that the apparent lack of racism has a lot to do with lack of self-awareness about what actual self-confessed racists say and do. At least skinheads know they're racist, these bozos don't even have the self-awareness to know that.

We're a long way off from Martin Luther King's dream. I certainly believe that racist attitudes influence the election in swing states like Ohio where I am encountering this attitude.

Notwithstanding the fact that that line is completely unoriginal (stolen from a Chris Rock comedy routine), I think you're on to something there.

Many people choose to express their racist sentiments in this language because open racism is socially unacceptable. It's also the case that they may not realize their preferences, or, alternatively, mischaracterize other feelings as a general bias against racial characteristics. I remember one horrifying day where I wondered if I was actually a racist because I felt uncomfortable in a mostly black and hispanic low-income neighborhood. While I ultimately found it was because of my unfamiliarity with the situation, I suspect that most of these people haven't been in the same boat before.

Is that where that line comes from? I really need to get up to date on popular culture. A lot of people seem to be borrowing it because it expresses their true feelings (not that they can't be original, my favorite line from a skinhead I knew was 'my country, my microwave,' mentioned solely to drive home these guys actually were what they were claiming to be, not just borrowing a Chris Rock line).

I have to confess that I get nervous in low income neighborhoods of all types, being classist is in the same thing as being racist (and I'll confess to being a bit classist, I know myself that well).

"If Obama loses by just a hair, I think it will be plausible to see his race as a decisive factor in the outcome."

One could say the same thing is he wins by a hair. You don't know and have no evidence to support your assertion. It's called race-baiting and it's destructive, at least if you really care about race relations rather than your team winning.

"Nothing about the argument suggests Romney isn't a strong candidate worthy of support on the merits. This wouldn't be such a big problem for Obama if he weren't."

Racism wouldn't be as much of a problem if Romney had fewer merits? Or the race card would not be necessary if Romney was unelectable?

Mr. Obama's skin color is the only reason he is president. Mr. Obama was a white voter's dream come true -- an educated, non-threatening black man for whom they could vote and so prove "I'm not prejudiced." A nice man with no record to speak of was elected on a platform of "He's not Bill Cosby, but he's close enough!" Add the 999.9999 percent black vote he received and it is hard to imagine his skin color being a disadvantage.

Americans really, really wanted his to succeed! Remember that "Time" cover with Obama as FDR? Well, it turns out we elected a black William Howard Taft or an African-American Benjamin Harrison. Nice enough guy, means well . . . but we can tell the sculptors at Mt. Rushmore to down tools.

As for this "less welcoming" business toward immigrants, yes . . . some areas are a bit over-whelmed. In a time of economic hardship the flood of Illegals strains municipal costs in areas such as medical care, education, police and social services. What are people supposed to say -- "We're short of money so let's invite foreigners to live here and that way we'll all go broke faster?"

As for white voters without college degrees . . . . exactly why should they want to re-elect Mr. Obama? They are out of work and the President goes about bloviating about a non-existent "War On Women." Furthermore, after their factories have shut-down, Mr. Obama tells them "the private sector is doing fine" or contemptuously remarks that "they" [how's THAT for prejudice against "the other?"] "cling to their guns and religion."

As for, ""Cutbacks at both the state and the federal level have focused heavily on programs that help people who are born, through no fault of their own, in the less privileged socioeconomic groups in the society," that, too, is baloney. "Cutbacks" have (very) slightly reduced the number of well-paid and over-pensioned public employees battened on the long-suffering tax-payer. And as for "no fault of their own," single-mothers weren't born pregnant "through no fault of their own." They did that all on their own as adults with choice.

As for Mr. Obama "not being one of us," you should have been around to hear what people said about the Kennedys -- not exactly jes' plain folks. (For that matter, you should have heard what they said about FDR, that "traitor to his class!") That's politics.

Mr. Obama has been patronizing toward huge sections of the electorate and now has to face the consequences. Yes, he may have been dealt a "crap hand" -- but so was FDR, who took office at the nadir of the Great Depression and led as the greatest political magician in American history. So was Truman, who inherited a little thing called World War Two. He didn't do such a bad job either. Ike inherited the Korean War and the arms race and, even so, "We liked Ike." It all depends on the character and ability of the man, doesn't it?

I am sure that your source, Professor Freidman, is tut-tutting over the benighted denizens of Darkest Intolerant America. After all . . . that isn't the way things are done at Harvard!

"Mr. Obama's skin color is the only reason he is president. Mr. Obama was a white voter's dream come true -- an educated, non-threatening black man for whom they could vote and so prove "I'm not prejudiced.""

Generalize much? It so happens that I'm white, but found him to be a better choice than the alternative. I also felt that his platform of less war and health care reform were better alternatives. I also thought he made the right call by opposing the war in Iraq. As for McCain, I did admire many of the things he did on the campaign trail, but I did not approve the GOP support for the status quo, along with its neo-con supporters.

I didn't vote for Obama because he is some magical black man, or liberal wet dream. I voted for him because he was better than the old guy who said "I don't understand Economics" and the moron who was poised to take his place, if and when, he died.

Anyone arguing that McCain/Palin was the better choice in 2008 than Obama/Biden truly forgets where the country was in that time and place.

He was clearly the better candidate, which is why he won. Nothing more. Nothing else.

The "old guy" who said "I don't understand Economics" had served five terms in the Senate. I did not vote for McCain but he was one of the most experienced senior politicians in contemporary America. Obama was . . .what can you say about his record? Now that Obama has proven utterly foozled by the current economic climate, caused a health bill to be passed that few understand and even fewer (including, possibly, the SCOTUS) like . . . what now? I suppose he could dredge up Ben Laden, shoot him again and then dump him overboard -- do that every couple of months and run on THAT.

The liberal press was full -- and I mean FULL -- of how wonderful it was that America was at last "mature" enough to elect a black man. I'll give Obama this much -- he is a dignified man who did not, himself, play the race card. But, not since JFK was there as much personal adulation for a man who had done approximately squat. Why? Well, with JFK there was the haircut . . . with Obama, there was the skin.

W.W. tries hard to peddle the idea that Obama is struggling because of his color. It was W.W. in Iowa City who floated skin as the issue. I happened to agree . . . but from a different perspective. Same issue . . . different interpretation.

Andros writes pure GOP nonsense. Since 2010 Obama's every effort to inject demand into a deteriorating domestic economy has been thwarted by a Republican opposition that would rather see Americans out of work than lose the White House in '12. The House, controlled by extremists (as it is now), can block legislation, no matter how sensible.

Obama's struggles are explained by an opposition indifferent to governing. His color is just a helpful propaganda piece.

Mr. Obama asked for -- and got -- a $900,000,000 public works program. He then allocated one-third of that to support teacher salaries. About one-third went to keep state and federal employees on the job (and voting Democrat) and the remaining one-third went into public works projects. This was his idea -- not that of the GOP. Maybe he should have asked for more -- but he did not. Maybe he should have spent the money differently-- but he did not. In his first term he allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to run the country and effectively lost control of public policy -- which he has never regained.

You blame things on the other team when your own team stinks. And, in politics you blame things on the "opposition" when your side is inept.

True. The politically correct elites were enthralled with Obama because he held out the possibility of racial redemption to guilt ridden well educated whites. People were hysterical about the man in 2008. Now we look back as if the nation was under a kind of Obama spell.

."Mr. Obama's skin color is the only reason he is president. Mr. Obama was a white voter's dream come true -- an educated, non-threatening black man for whom they could vote and so prove "I'm not prejudiced"."
-
Looking back on why I voted for Obama, I've got to say I did think the idea that the United States would have elected a black President for the first time as a good thing. I still do, and I think that it will be somewhat disappointing if our first black President is voted out. It is even more disappointing that he turned out to be such a failure. By the way, I also think it would be good for America to elect a Mormon for the first time.
-
That's not so much about what it would say about me, but about the country. Also, I knew Obama was going to win the only thing I wasn't sure of was which way Virginia was going to go, and I did think it was important that our state rebuke parts of its past.
-
So, yeah it mattered, but not alot. The real reason I voted for Obama, and I think this was the major issue for most swing voters, was that I really really really hated George W. Bush.
-
The reason Americans voted for the nice well spoken black man, was because he was well spoken! That was what was different. As George Bush would say, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again".
-
The most important thing as it concerned what the President conveys about America, is that he not be a total doofus. Obama was supposed to offer a bold change of course on this, but then he opened his mouth and out came "Don't call my bluff!". Again!
-
For two decades straight now, we've had a doofus in charge. From debating the meaning of the word "is", to opposing "bariffs and terriers", to going on about "social Darwinism", it's been bad times.
-
So, sure, I'm prejudiced against Mr. Obama's people. The hordes of doofuses that have run rampant must be stopped! Right now I'm hoping that Mitt is just the dweeb he appears to be and not a full-on doofus. He's our only hope.

Oh meh. Hillary had baggage from Clinton and Zietgiest that political dynasties were getting old. Bush botched it so bad McCain would have had a tough time of it, but then he

A) Selected Palin as a running mate.
B) Called a for him and Obama to suspend their campaigns, meet with the Bush admin to grapple with the economic meltdown. The outcome? The only one who had his head wrapped around the problem was Mr O, McCain came with talkig points, and the Shrubbery whined and left the room because he couldn't control anything.

My inept side bailed out Detroit successfully, when your guy wanted them dumped. My inept friends just added 4.2 million private sector jobs; your brilliant group lost about 2.6. The inept side caught Bin Laden when your genius group missed him. Our inept group has ended 2 wars that you best and brightest had started and lost.

Conservatives don't govern better; they govern worse. Conservatives don't have better (or, for that matter, any) ideas. What they have is a talent for enforced loyalty, the willingness to march in lockstep on every issue, a complete indifference to improving the lives of Americans and an impressive propaganda machine. This gives them lots of opportunities to govern, despite their odious, failed ideas. The Nazis had lots of odious ideas, but they got to govern for a long time.

"Mr. Obama asked for -- and got -- a $900,000,000 public works program. He then allocated one-third of that to support teacher salaries. About one-third went to keep state and federal employees on the job (and voting Democrat) and the remaining one-third went into public works projects."

You forgot the 1/3 that cam as tax breaks, which makes for a total of 4/3. You also forgot that the stimulus passed in 2009, prior to the GOP entry in 2011. What else are you "forgetting"?

You know what I think would be good? If we elected people for there qualifications and not there minority group. That would probably be good. I noticed above a lot of people saying he was the least bad option. Without agree or disagree the problem is obvious; a lack of good options!

Yeah, well at least "old guy who said 'I don't understand Economics'" was honest about it. Obama obviously had no understanding of economics either, but was too arrogant and demented to admit it. This is the major problem with Obama -- he does not appreciate his own ignorance. This is a common problem among people who studied fluff as undergraduates, as Obama did, especially if they have then gone to law school.

As one of my favorite philosopher-economists Thomas Sowell said several years ago (and I'm not quoting him verbatim since I don't remember the exact words) - "Yes, there is always going to be a bottom 20% in any society. But there are no pre-destined number of teenage pregnancies, no pre-destined number of school dropouts. I grew up in a time when there was much more and overt discrimination against blacks (he's an African American), but when the rate of teenage pregnancies and husband desertion was a lot lower"

Obama's team could add to their framing this:
"Given that Mitt has cut only for his own benefit in his decades as a cororate rider, who do you want negotiating for you when it comes down to who gets hurt and who doesn't?